ITAT Delhi held that receipts from hiring conference and auditorium facilities constituted business income under Section 11(4A) as the charitable society actively provided commercial facilities beyond passive letting. The assessee’s appeals were dismissed.
The ITAT observed that recording satisfaction for one penalty provision cannot substitute the statutory requirement for initiating proceedings under Section 271D. The penalties were therefore set aside following the Supreme Court’s decision in Jai Laxmi Rice Mills.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)’s order annulling assessments because the search was not conducted in the assessee’s name. It also noted that the Revenue’s appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The ITAT held that the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation extension did not apply to statutory timelines for completing income-tax assessments. It dismissed the Revenue’s recall application and upheld the earlier order quashing the assessment as time-barred.
ITAT Delhi held that cash deposits arising from recorded and accepted cash sales cannot be added as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The Tribunal found no evidence contradicting the books of account or stock records.
ITAT Delhi held that no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) could be made where investments yielding exempt income were financed from the assessee’s own funds rather than borrowed funds.
The ITAT held that proceeds from the sale of ancestral immovable property are taxable under the head Capital Gains” and not Income from Other Sources. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation after considering the assessee’s documents.
The Delhi ITAT held that cash deposits sourced from recorded cash sales cannot be treated as unexplained credits once the sales and books of account are accepted. The Tribunal deleted the Section 68 addition as it resulted in double taxation of the same income.
The ITAT Delhi held that only 1% of the gross bank transactions could be assessed as income after finding that the assessee acted as a commission agent. It upheld the CIT(A)’s reliance on the consistent approach adopted in the preceding assessment year.
The ITAT Delhi held that an appeal against an assessment order under Section 143(3) was not maintainable where no fresh additions or adverse findings were made. It ruled that the taxpayer’s grievance related to the earlier Section 143(1) order.
